We’ve seen the Mormons ignoring the “Giggarish gold tablet inscriptions” and the “Indians-not-really-Jews” things and yet still believe the rest of the pablum they are fed. But Jesus’ dead remains are a pretty good argument against the bodily ressurection to Heaven. Can it ever be proven, and what would it do?http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0207/400762.html
Filmmakers and researchers on Monday unveiled two ancient stone boxes they said may have once contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, but several scholars derided the claims made in a new documentary as unfounded and contradictory to basic Christian beliefs. “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” produced by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and scheduled to air March 4 on the Discovery Channel, argues that 10 small caskets discovered in 1980 in a Jerusalem suburb may have held the bones of Jesus and his family.One of the caskets even bears the title, “Judah, son of Jesus,” hinting that Jesus may have had a son, according to the film.”There’s a definite sense that you have to pinch yourself,” Cameron said Monday at a news conference. He told NBC’S “Today” show earlier that statisticians found “in the range of a couple of million to one” in favor of the documentary’s conclusions about the caskets, or ossuaries.Simcha Jacobovici, the Toronto filmmaker who directed the film, said that a name on one of the ossuaries – “Mariamene” – offers evidence that the tomb is that of Jesus and his family. In early Christian texts, “Mariamene” is the name of Mary Magdalene, he said.The very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.
Comment from: tmarkville [Member]
leestein, I fail to see why you would feel traumatized. As I’ve said, my own son is cut and it didn’t seem to bother him any. Millions of dudes are walking around with an aerodynamic and maintenance free TOOL without complaint.
I’m not trying to tell you how to feel but if this is your biggest psychological scar, you’re in pretty good shape.
_________________________
A child has the right to an intact body. Sometimes, in the case of birth defects or disease this can’t be helped. But a foreskin is not a birth defect. A healthy functioning part of my body was surgically removed for no good reason when I was an infant and had no say in the matter. I’m not saying this is my biggest psychological scar, but I think I’m justified in being pissed off about it.
The fact that it’s been done to millions of babies every year for the past century doesn’t make it right, and neither does the fact that it’s possible to function without it.
Would you amputate the little toes from babies because they would still be able to walk fine without them? Of course not.
Ten years ago, a law was passed making it illegal to do this to little girls in the US. Why shouldn’t little boys have equal protection under the law? Or do you think the Female Genital Mutilation Act should be repealed because it’s cleaner and looks more “aerodynamic?”
It bothers me that they are performing elective surgery without consent.
I have also talked to men that say they don’t wash their penis for religious reasons, because washing would require touching. That means the only time their penis gets “washed” is during sex. Doesn’t it bother the religious women that the man is never washing his penis? I guess circumcision makes that possible but, it hardly seems desirable to me.
Off topic, I didn’t know god was broke:
http://news.aol.com/strange/story/_a/man-tried-to-cash-check-from-god-police/n20070228172009990001
sword_strike
I can just hear god laughing at this guy and saying, “Heh, heh, What’s in YER wallet!?”
rna,
You’re right. Not only is circumcision usually forced upon guys who are too young to know what a penis is, but often those victims are brainwashed into believing that they do not have the freedom to even touch parts of THEIR OWN BODIES.
Easy way to prove the religion wrong: touch the penis, and see what happens.